 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
How's this sound?? -- An alien spacecraft approaches Earth from the opposite side of the Sun (our perspective) and is therefore not detected until it's about to enter orbit. A foreign nation, mistaking it as a threat from another govenment, fires a missile at it, only disabling it and placing it into a very low altitude polar orbit. The spacecraft utilizes fusion technology and thus its engines burn with extreme intensity -- from the surface of the Earth, its passing overhead results in a 1 million degree blast. Total destruction in a 5 mile wide path. No communication can be made due to the original hit from the disabling missile -- eventually (within days) the entire planet will be burned to a cindar. Sound familiar -- it was done. Titled "The Lost Missile", it was a low budget (but somewhat decent) film out of Canada. I believe this is a story that could be re-made into a decent film, especially with today's special effects and an audience not familliar with the original. Given the drivel that exudes from Hollywood as SF these days -- Armageddon - Remake of Lost in Space - Any Matrix Movie - Remake of Planet of the Apes - etc.; this one could actually keep the Science in SF correct. Comments??
Follow Ups:
Merak,O Merak! Thou Logic is Harsh!: An ode in the popular Metaphysickal Manner
by: Bambi B, Woodland Hills, CA, either 1604 or 2003.
"Oh, Merak, tho faily short, but still so long on brain,
Thou Logic is too Harsh!Where may fly Man, machine, or beast, flit fast far through Time and Space
And this Great Deed we see, a mere dalliance of some future, more Fortunate Time
So gentle done, the doing even need not wake a single Muse,
These Great Flames fortold that mighst the whole Earth Rub out!Thy story is all that restless Dream
That our sleepy souls must watchSo let fly thy Fancy farthest toss'd
On wings of gossamer'd dreams
And make both of these I say:
Of many places Fair
Where Pleasure reigns in drowsy afternoon Peace.
But and here make some of this too:
To Fair to Life! We need see those Places and Persons foul!
And know this the enemy of our very Lives know better than ourself!
We needst know where we needst Look,
Whence Evil drops it's heavy-armed hammer
On mortals Tender such as We.O, Merak thy Logic is too harsh!
It is so much more fair and lovely
That thee thy Heavens and thy Hells
Are the further Out
Than mine.Those that prosper in short, shall liveth longer, those that liveth longer prosper not, for they have paid their way to Eternity on clay boots of dearest reality."
Bambi B
-copyright 2003 from my new book of poetry- "The 227 Easy Ways of Avoiding the Subject that Effective People Use that the Wall Street Fat Cats Don't Want YOU To Know."
Well, at least my harsh logic can be understood.What the heck are you trying to say ??
Merak,I, the Ktachm of the Elders of the Bonaq People hereby send you back to Vulcan for a "Ktath-hooth ba Ruth" or the gentle slap upside the head of Enlightenment.
Now for some more impenetrable logic, so bifurcatedly obfuscated as to render it heuristically pedantic in scope and copyrightedly attributable by nature.
Concept: Behind your conception of the Earth geting all burned up, your idea is to create "science fiction".
Definition: This term contains two words: "science" and "fiction".
Premise: You need to use both science and fiction to comply with the parameters of science fiction.
Use some real, pure science.
But just enough makes it plausible.
The audience is only interested in pure science "reality" until the first impossible time travel, teleportation, or superlight travel scene takes place: then they say "suspend disbelief".
Look into the meaning of "suspension of disbelief" and you will find relief from the torment of having to have everything so tightly "realistic". Once the audince is "on the beam" you don;t have to justify everything. If you justify eveything, the whole thing will be only that explanation. Don't under any circumstances have characters like Jordie on TNG standing around talking about "bypassing the tachyon beam to the main dish to project a field-reversal beam that will change the density of.." as this talk after ten seconds causes headaches in all but the most severely emotionally challenged. It is recognized as cheap filler,and even though there some internal logic to it all based on real science- we don't care- and very quickly.
For reality there's the Discovery Channel and C-SPAN.
This is because the audience for sci fi want to be dazzled by the imagination of exotic environments and characters, the wilder the better. Haven't we seen everything; shape shifting, galactic powers controlled by a single mind, superlight and time travel- and with all these big time miracles now the easy, old stuff (the "mere dalliance" of the poem), but what have you shown me lately?
Think visually.
What is it that has completely killed the "Star Wars" franchise and made the last two products pathetically boring, and lifeless, merchandising mills? It's that the characters are no longer mythic, larger than life, resourceful independent people of action fighting decisive battles of Good and Evil, they are employees, employees of governments that stand around in rooms talking politics and economics of trade blockades. Watch: C-SPAN and there are far more interesting characters.
No amount of great "real science: will make this interesting, we want to see the personal struggles and far outedness- places and characters beyond our imagination.
In Sum: Leave off the science after awhile and use a lot more fiction. This makes it more interesting.
The more extreme the fiction the more interesting. The science part can fall to the background in support of "suspension of disbelief".
The maker of science fiction must incorporate both words of the term "science fiction": "Science" AND Fiction". The proportion is flexible, but there must be both present.
Q.E.D. I think gentlemen, and my wager of One Hundred Thousand Guineas is won.
Cheers,Bam
PS: Don't rely only on the movies: read Douglas Adams and look for structure in the stories.
My comments and replies were to those questions and concerns that debated my premise, not the storyline. I simply defended the plausibility factor -- and for your information (and that of everyone interested) I know a bit more "science" than the average Joe. Your comments showed you simply misunderstood what was being answered. The "Suspension of Disbelief" is initiated by having an alien spacecraft approach Earth and its bizarre alignment causing it to be unnoticed while coming in on the far side of the Sun. This is further enhanced by having the attacking missile (from Earth) strike the craft in such a way as to cause it to lose sufficeint maneuverability while keeping it in a low Earth orbit. (If the above isn't sufficient for your immagination, then I recommend a course in physics to see just how unlikely all of that happening actually is.) As for the "Human" side of the story, one can encounter the timely stuggle mankind is now forced to endure. Will a solution be found in time? Perhaps alternate theories of how to solve this situation will play against each other -- and a single choice must be made, for there won't be time for a second chance. Themes of man against machine, man against man, man against the unkown, and even man against the impossible where man loses (yes, we CAN lose) can all be entertained here. In my humble opinion, it is when science is taken to its limit of knowledge that the most exciting and entertaining Science Fiction is created -- otherwise, you have only Fantasy.
Merak,You began this thread with a premise and the the concept of scientific "realism", and now are fortunately softening this stance a bit- "see how unlikely all of that happening actually is".
I appreciate your interest in scientific plausibility, but my point is that in creating science fiction, the reality of the situation is moot without creating interst in the overall situation. The interest in the story is limited without a fundamental integration of the "storyline" with the concept of the aliens, the destroyer craft and the humans that oppose- or don't oppose- the attackers.
As you've seen in this thread, if you maintain a concentration on complete "realism", the result becomes a kind of documentary- similar say to the ones of asteroids hitting the Earth, intriguing, but not exciting as sci fi. Without the story overwhelming the science, the audience- as I, late, and orejones have done- will just sit and poke holes all day long in the premise- which is easier than you admit. That's the penalty of insisting - and becoming so defensive- on a kind of barebones "truth", whereas entertainers with a great story only need go so far in that realm. The suspension of disbelief creates a distraction. That's why I recommended Douglas Adams. "Hitchhiker's Guide" which opens with the Earth to be destroyed in 20 minutes. This is done without much fanfare, and no one reading the book questions the physics of it or the reason (to create a galactic bypass), because we have suspended disbelief in the first paragraph.
There is nothing wrong in clearly identified fantasy and if fact it is the main thing your potential audience is interested in. The thing is, the sci fi audience has just seen it all- we need to know what makes your story idea interesting enough that viewers of "Independence Day" for example, with a similar premise, will want to see your movie too.
Film scripts are extremely difficult to do well enough to stimulate and amintain interest and you might consider Syd Field's or other books on structure, plot, dialogue, and character. It is important to conceive of your audience/market too. Script seminars like Truby's too can help put the task into perspective.
I would be interested in reading your story idea again, but balanced within the total story with all the other components in addition to the basic attack one.
Your comments: "Will a solution be found in time? Perhaps alternate theories of how to solve this situation will play against each other -- and a single choice must be made, for there won't be time for a second chance. Themes of man against machine, man against man, man against the unkown, and even man against the impossible where man loses (yes, we CAN lose) can all be entertained here", all seems to be on a better track and is the most encouraging thing I've seen here. That's the "real" stuff of your movie- not whether the ship can stay in orbit or hide behind the Sun.
Science is not truth and not even fact very often, but only a belief structure that provides temporary, extremely incomplete opinions on the physical Universe.
Cheers,
Bambi B
If you go back to the original querry (Good idea for a SF movie?) you will see just a basic outline. From there all I starting getting was a bunch of comments wondering how all this can happen. I gave very plausible answers without requiring too much unbelievability. They were both scientific and possible -- after all, this is SCIENCE fiction. Most movies today that are claimed SF are more Fantasy than science -- I call them as I see them. If that's what you believe the audience of today wants, so be it -- but don't call it SF. (As more and more of today's population becomes more and more scientifically ignorant, I can actually conceed your point.) My idea grew out of what was a very well thought out premise, but unfortunately fell short due to early and poor special effects. I also am aiming this film idea at those that actually know some science -- not just those that glanced up at a science catalog and said "Hey, dude, that's cool". It seems that what I heard decades ago is still very true today, the hardest form of literature to write well is Science Fiction, for it must not only be interesting, it must also be accurate. You admitted that my themes are encouraging -- well, they were always present; too many tried to first shoot it down by attacking the science, which only showed their true knowledge (or immagination) was lacking. If one had actually asked about the storyline, they would have gotten here sooner.So, if you want to have a film that isn't something that has been done (or seen) much before, consider something scientifically accurate for a change. With that in mind, let me offer some films that have a stronger than average scientific foundation . . .
1) Forbidden Planet
2) Andromeda Strain
3) Alien
4) 2001: A Space Odyssey
5) War of the Worlds
6) The Lost Missile
7) The Day the Earth Stood Still
8) Fantastic Voyage
9) Jurasic Park
10) The Man in the White SuitAnd here are some authors that have done a fairly good job . . .
1) Robert Heinlen
2) Arthur C. Clarke
3) Issac Asimov
4) Harlan EllisonNow, each film or author has its (his) good and bad points, and nothing is perfect, and one can surely add to each list, but both lists will not be lengthy, because "good" SF is not easy. (Each one is also something of a Classic, showing that if done well, SF can be good, even with good science.) And like so many others, I think you misunderstand what science is. It is a method, not a conclusion (never confuse one for the other), and is always the 100% correct way to better understand reality. So, if you wish to get Unreal, fine -- but I will contine with the more likely reality of good SF.
PS: Here's a list of movies that pass themselves off as SF . . .
1) Signs
2) Solaris
3) Independence Day
4) Star Wars (I, II, III, IV, V -- and whatever comes next)
5) Starship Troopers
6) Total Recall
7) Matrix (I, II, III)
8) Terminator (I, II, III)
9) Mission to Mars
10) Jurasic Park (II, III)
11) E.T.
12) Close Encounters
13) Communion
14) Time Machine
15) Armageddon
16) . . . the list just keeps going like the little bunny.Yes, they are good (some), but not SF.
Merak,There are some technical problems in the premise, but of course, travellers from light years away with million degree heat beams may have purchased their vehicle from the same company that made the "Independence Day" ones with the optional big heat beams.
Hiding behind the Sun to attack the Earth is an old trick and one a lot of people would be watching for.
CAPT. ROD
Say Joe, look at this. We have a bogey at one-niner two o'clock around the Sun trying to surprise us!COL. REX
You're right Rod, and they're only 128,000,000 miles away, call me in two weeks! And get this straight once and for all: my name is "Rex- Rex Dynamic."ROD
Have your way Ray. Say, how's that beautiful, large breasted nd vulnerable girlfriend that can not easily escape from the big city in case of emergency?REX
She's leaving me, going back to the circus. Let's get a drink.ROD
Now you're talkin' big boy. Let's go to my place.I think I would need to know more about the reason the aliens are going to so much trouble and more about the unhappy girlfriend of the rebellious fighter pilot that is going to stop them, before accepting the overall premise.
Cheer,
Bambi B
My favourite line from "Independence Day": In the locker room "You never should have married a stripper if you wanted to be an astronaut." Good Advice!
Bambi B,First of all, there is no need for the spacecraft to be "attacking" the Earth -- it will be disabled by a bad military response. Second, it need not be manned (or aliened, if you prefer) -- it could just be a probe of sorts that is sent from a civilization that believes we are worth investigating (after years of receiving radio/TV electromagnetic signals. Third, at only 0.04c (4% the relative speed of light) it could travel from outside the orbit of Saturn (the detectable region for many comets -- much bigger and slower than our friend) to just behind the Sun (from Earth) in only 3 days. From the Sun to Earth in only hours. If it's unmanned (oops, I mean unaliened) it can withstand high G forces allowing it to get into Earth orbit (or just about) very quickly -- which is where it is fired upon. With only hours of potential warning, and moments to make a shoot or no shoot decision, I can easily see a panic shot being launced -- if not several. Wasn't there an incident, not many years ago, where an Alaska passenger airliner got shot down by a Soviet missile? In plain English -- S*** happens.
.
late,If a rocket motor were projecting a million degree heat 5 miles wide against the Earth from orbit, the considerable energy of the radiating heat would push it away at an astounding rate. It would need an equal or greater thrust in the opposite direction to stay in orbit. Think of the fuel bills?
What kind of spark plugs would this craft use?
Cheers,
Bambi B
Well, at least you're entertaining the notion -- that's good, and so is your question. A low Earth orbit (as originally described) need not be out in 'Space'. If the craft is disabled after it began to slow down on its own, then the orbit can be only a few 10's of miles high. This would place it low enough for atmospheric friction to keep it from unlimited acceleration but not enough to burn it up, at least until a few orbits have been traveled. Also, at that low altitude the heat energy would be severely felt at the surface. The space shuttle can withstand the heat generated upon re-entry, so it would not be a far stretch to imagine a better material able to withstand several orbits at the altitude described.
.
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're saying, but the thrust of the film (pun unintended) is exactly that. The spacecraft becomes the means for mankind's (and Earth's) demise -- unless of course, a solution is found in time.
Hi,
sure it would make a mess. For about 2 seconds. That is enough thrust to get you to a fraction of C. That amount of thrust is unbelievable; having an equal opposite thrust to keep it in place is twice as unbelievable. But I wouldn't mind having one of those to play with.
True enough, if the spacecraft were performing as designed, but it was shot at and disabled -- this could now cause the energy to become more dispersed instead of focused. The net thrust vector in a forward direction could be significantly smaller (although still substantial) than before. This would cause the exhaust to be felt on the surface, where, if it were not hit, be felt only in a small narrow field behind the craft. It would be analogus to trying to launch a rocket without using an exhaust nozzel under the rocket's engine(s). The heat and blast energy would go out in all directions -- the net upward thrust vector would now be only a small fraction of what is necessary to lift the rocket. The rest, is now wasted heat -- where one once stood to watch a spectacular launch would now become a place to become incinerated.
\
""An alien spacecraft approaches Earth from the opposite side of the Sun (our perspective) and is therefore not detected until it's about to enter orbit...""How can that happen? Last time I looked at it, Earth was spinning around Sun, taking 365 days, and a few hours to travel a whole orbit (thatīs what one year is), so thereīs no way anything could come "from the opposite side of the Sun"...
That reminds me of that old joke about sending a satellite to the Sun and, to avoid it being burnt, be sending it during the night hours...
Regards
BF
.
Yes, it wouldnīt be so difficult to play "Hide and Seek", but... why doing so?Unless they knew about the existence of us belicose humans..., but then why didnīt they prepare that ship to defend itself from the idiot in charge...?
That script needs a sharp twist to make it fit.
Regards
BF
A low Earth orbit (as originally described) need not be out in 'Space'. If the craft is disabled after it began to slow down on its own, then the orbit can be only a few 10's of miles high. This would place it low enough for atmospheric friction to keep it from unlimited acceleration but not enough to burn it up, at least until a few orbits have been traveled. Also, at that low altitude the heat energy would be severely felt at the surface. The space shuttle can withstand the heat generated upon re-entry, so it would not be a far stretch to imagine a better material able to withstand several orbits at the altitude described.
First of all, there is no need for the spacecraft to be anything but trying to reach the Earth. Second, it need not be manned (or aliened, if you prefer) -- it could just be a probe of sorts that is sent from a civilization that believes we are worth investigating (after years of receiving radio/TV electromagnetic signals. Third, at only 0.04c (4% the relative speed of light) it could travel from outside the orbit of Saturn (the detectable region for many comets -- much bigger and slower than our friend) to just behind the Sun (from Earth) in only 3 days. From the Sun to Earth in only hours. If it's unmanned (oops, I mean unaliened) it can withstand high G forces allowing it to get into Earth orbit (or just about) very quickly -- which is where it is fired upon. With only hours of potential warning, and moments to make a shoot or no shoot decision, I can easily see a panic shot being launced -- if not several. Wasn't there an incident, not many years ago, where an Alaska passenger airliner got shot down by a Soviet missile? In plain English -- S*** happens.
The spacecraft does not have to travel anywhere near light speed in order to make the trip from our detectable limits (not knowing that it's out there headed towards us) to being within Earth orbit distance (opposite the Sun) within a few days. The earth travels an angular displacement of only a few degrees within that time; and since to detect it we would have to be looking directly through the sun to see it for most of that time -- it can get in. But thank you for your input, at least you entertained the thought, and that's what counts!
Look at the distances involved (Jupiter is some 800 billion kilometers from Earth...) and then consider that nothing is staying quiet in the Solar System, but spinning around Sun at veeery high speeds..., and the farther it comes from, the smaller the angular displacement needed to detect it, even if there were no satellites around, or something like good old Hubble...And then, that ship would need to lower its speed when coming in, or would never be able to enter any decent orbit: that all requires time, doesnīt it?
Regards
BF
I have addressed your concerns in two earlier replies -- but due to the way replies are posted, the first one lies below the second.
n
Thank you for reminding me of two more idiotic films out of Hollywood -- Solaris and Signs.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
